Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th May - 19th May

Delhi High CourtDelhi High Court Sets Aside Orders Upholding Arbitral Award In Favour of Kalanithi Maran In SpiceJet Dispute, Quashes ₹270 Crore Payment Directive Case Title: Ajay Singh and Anr vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr. Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 179/2023 The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside a Single-judge decision that upheld an arbitral tribunal's decision requiring the cash-strapped SpiceJet and its chairman, Ajay Singh, to refund ₹ 270 crore plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran and his company, KAL Airways. The arbitral award directed SpiceJet to refund ₹ 270 crore to Maran, with additional interest rates of 12% per annum on warrants and 18% per annum on the awarded sums if not paid timely. On July 31, 2023, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh upheld the tribunal's award and held that SpiceJet failed to demonstrate any illegality in the arbitral decision. The court dismissed Maran's request to reinstate his 58.46% stake in SpiceJet and his demand for damages. Thereafter, SpiceJet and Ajay Singh appealed the decision of the Justice Chandra Dhari Singh. [Arbitration Act] Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Should Not Be Declined On Composition Of Tribunal If Not Raised Before Tribunal Or Seat Court: Delhi High Court Case Title: Mercator Ltd. Vs Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd And Connected Matters Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 598 Case Number: O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 2/2019, EX.APPL.(OS) 27/2020, EX.APPL.(OS) 182/2020, EX.APPL.(OS) 346/2022, EX.APPL.(OS) 2985/2022 & EX.APPL.(OS) 1620/2023 and Connected Matters The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that enforcement of foreign awards should not be declined on grounds relating to the composition of the tribunal, which could have been raised before the Tribunal and before the seat Court, but were not so raised. It held that the judgment debtor did not object, even at the stage of appointment, on this ground. The bench held that: “This argument is quite evidently an afterthought, intended only as speculative litigation with the fond hope that by flinging mud on a foreign arbitral award, some of the mud so flung would stick.” Seat Of Arbitration To Be Determined On Basis Of Connection With Arbitration Proceedings, Not With Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court Case Title: Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Vs M/S Satinder Mahajan Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 597 Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 337/2021 & I.As. 14635/2021, 14862/2022 The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that the seat of the arbitration proceedings is to be determined on the basis of connection with the arbitral proceedings, and not with the cause of action for the underlying disputes. Court Can't Mechanically Send Dispute To Arbitral Tribunal, Must Consider Fundamental Issues u/s 11(6A): Delhi High Court Case Title: Deepak Maurya Vs Saraswathi Supari Processing Unit & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 595 Case Number: ARB.P. 420/2023 The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that the Court is not required to behave in a mechanical manner to send a party's dispute to the arbitral tribunal and must consider the fundamental issues, within the parameters outlined in Section 11(6-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that: “Since it is a well-settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court at the stage for making reference is very limited and the referral court cannot enter into the roving enquiry. However, at the same time court is not expected to act in a mechanical fashion and refer the disputes at the mere request. The matter can only be referred if the petitioner has shown existence of some artriable dispute between two parties. The purpose of notice under Section 21 is also to apprise the other party about the disputes between the parties. Strangely, the petitioner neither in the petition nor in the notice has enumerated such disputes.” Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction under S.9 of A&C act Restricting Savera Eats' Usage of 'Burger Singh' Case Title: Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited Vs Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 594 Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 116/2024 The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited to prevent Savera Eats from using the “Burger Singh” registered trademark. The bench held that despite the termination of the franchise agreement, Savera Eats continued to operate the franchise outlet under the Petitioner's registered trademark “Burger Singh”. [Arbitration Act] Public Policy While Considering Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Has To Be Construed Narrowly, In Consonance With International Notions: Delhi High Court ...

Arbitration Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th May - 19th May

Rajesh Kumar

Tags